The Original Article
Source: The Sunday Times
Day: Sunday
Pub Date: 06/05/2007
Page: 4
Headline: You’re 13? What’s your bust size?
By: CHERYL TAN
Page Heading: news
Picture Caption:
INDECENT PROPOSAL #1: Roger (above) suggested meeting at Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”. The 32-year-old brought along a laptop to play his “movies” . He claimed to have met girls of all ages “for fun”. He did not believe I was a reporter.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #2: Josh
(left), 28, arranged for a meeting in a playground in Bishan. He promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home “to cuddle for a bit”. He later claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #3: Darren (below) set up a meeting at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in. He said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
Two hours after meeting him, a woman claiming to be the 27-year-old’s girlfriend called to say someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number online.
Men prowl Internet chatrooms and lure young girls into meeting them for sex.
Cheryl Tan poses as a 13-year-old schoolgirl and gets one indecent proposal after another.
WITHIN four minutes of introducing himself in a local Internet relay chatroom meant for teenagers, Aauarius asked to feel my breasts.
Even after knowing that I was a 13-year-old schoolgirl, he asked for my height, weight, waist measurement and size of my “top”.
Claiming his real name was Eric, 22, he offered to take me shopping and to lunch – both at his expense.
“I treat you everything tomorrow,” he promised.
But I had to let him “feel feel” me.
Eric was just one of 90 men who messaged me within minutes of entering an Internet chatroom.
Even after I said that I was 13, the lewd offers still came thick and fast.
These men did not seem worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16.
The punishment for statutory rape is severe – the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane.
Despite this, the number of men reported to the police for having sex with underage girls has shot up over the last six years.
Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001.
Just last month, three men aged between 18 and 23 were in court for having sex with a minor. The girl was only 12.
The laws will be toughened soon to deal with such paedophiles.
Psychiatrist Brian Yeo said men who target young girls do so to “feel in control”.
He said they get a “thrill” and consider it a “conquest” when a young girl gives in to their request.
Psychologist Daniel Koh added that because the young girls are sexually inexperienced, these men think they are “easier to please”.
But not all girls are that innocent, said Dr Yeo, and some crave the attention these men lavish. “They find it fun to have men go ga-ga over their photos.”
Even though I did not have a photo to show the men who were chatting me up, many still ended up proposing a secret rendezvous.
Finding out that I was only 13 did not deter 27 men from doing so. Only 10 dropped out of the chat after I said that I was 13.
I could barely keep up with the chat requests and respond to everyone.
Some started slow. They made small talk before moving on to more personal questions such as what underwear I was wearing and whether I had any sexual experience.
Others asked for sex from the word go. One man’s opening line was: “Want sex and quick cash?”
Another guy wanted to know how short my school skirt was. A few asked for my vital statistics.
One man tried to lure me out by saying that a pink bikini and denim skirt would be mine to keep if I went to his home. Some also asked if I had “petted” before and described in graphic detail what that meant.
One man, Andy, even boasted about his experience with a 15-year-old girl at a hotel. The 26-year-old claimed to be “skilful” at sex and promised that I would feel no pain.
Darren, whose pick-up line was to ask if I was keen on earning $1,500, called me “girl”. He asked for my age, my school, and why I was not in class on a Friday morning.
For that amount of money, all he wanted from me was to “accompany” him.
Going by the nickname Lucifer, the 27-year-old who claimed to be an advertising manager said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
He asked to meet me at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in.
He offered to pay for my cab fare to his place, which would have come up to about $20. He said we could have breakfast and watch comedy movies. He gave me his mobile number.
When I got there and called him, he asked me again if I was really 13.
While I waited on a slide, Darren circled the playground several times. He then disappeared behind a block of flats and hid behind a pillar.
My phone rang – it was him. He claimed he did not see me at the playground and asked to meet at the lift lobby instead.
When I faked unfamiliarity with the area, he finally approached me.
Wearing spectacles, a bright red sweater and black bermudas, the first thing he asked me was: “Are you the girl I chatted with online?”
When I identified myself as a reporter, Darren immediately denied knowing that I was 13.
Even as he tried to inch away from me, he insisted that his motive was purely innocent. He “really just wanted to watch movies” with me at his flat.
Two hours later, a woman who claimed to be Darren’s girlfriend called to say that it had been a case of “mistaken identity”. She claimed that someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number on the Net.
Another online chatter, who arranged to meet me at a playground in Bishan, lied about his age.
Claiming to be 19, Josh wanted to “cuddle for a bit” in his home. He later changed tack and said he was actually a 28-year-old basketball coach who trained schoolgirls as young as eight.
To entice me to meet him, Josh promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home.
Dressed in a white polo T-shirt and Adidas basketball shorts, he was calm when I said I was a reporter.
Lighting up a cigarette, Josh said he wanted only to walk around with me to “pass the time”. He also claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
The third man who coaxed me out promised a massage and the chance to watch movies which I was “not supposed to watch yet”.
Roger suggested meeting in Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”.
He brought along a laptop to play his “movies”.
Towering over me, the 32-year-old who claimed to be a computer systems engineer said he has met girls of all ages and that it was only “for fun”.
Roger did not believe I was a reporter.
He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him.
After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: “Can’t chat anymore?”
My Response:
This disturbing issue is hardly esoteric: sex offenders are rampant, and would find all means to achieve their devious aims. The internet adds a whole new dimension into the sophistication of this depravity, as offenders prowl popular online chat rooms to predate their next victim. It is astounding still that many blatantly made lewd proposals to a phony 13-year-old, showing how susceptible a genuine 13-year-old can be exposed to sex predators…
The report may have been exaggerated: a staggering 30% of the men who chatted wanted to rendezvous with the “13-year-old”, but alas I’m not aware of the statistics of sex offenders’ crime rates. But the astounding responses nevertheless reveal a thriving paedophile online community, who seek young females at the threshold of teenagehood, undergoing various physiological changes yet retaining mental naivety. These youngsters suffer higher risks of submitting to indecent demands and commit wrongdoings that easily leave an indelible scar, marring them for the rest of their lives.
Relatively speaking, the sex predators are extremely audacious and assertive. For instance:
“Roger did not believe I was a reporter. He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him. After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: 'Can’t chat anymore?'”
The writer here writes rather dispassionately her experience, occasionally injecting thought-provoking and sensationalising humour, as present in this quotation. But aside from humour, a certain irony is expressed in this very apt ending. One may expect a potential sex offender to inch away after being informed of a reporter previously marauding as a teenager. But Roger refuses to believe it, continuing to hint, blissfully unaware that he might appear on newspapers. This leaves me incredulous and shocked as to the “openness” of the situation. This individual account suffices to eclipse the statistics—that even a single man can present himself this way shows the derring-do of sex-predators—they would stop at nothing.
Hence measures and punishments- whose mere mention was almost ominously avoided in this article- must be meted out urgently. Education is the most important psychological barrier, which MOE partially accomplished under “sex education” in schools. However, this often comes across as stodgy and dull, thus teachers must also engage in heartfelt talks with students to convince students to avoid sex predators. Parents, similarly, can monitor their daughters’ whereabouts and the people they befriend, watching out for potential offenders. Lastly, both teachers and parents alike should keep on a lookout for any symptoms of anomaly in their daughters, so as to detect the presence of sex predators in their lives. On the other hand, the authorities should regulate online chats such that young females cannot have access to these sites, hence effectively protecting them physically from these sex offenders.
To conclude, I think that young boys might also fall prey to online sex offenders, as I have no qualms that since paedophiles exist, so will homosexual paedophiles. I may be biased towards my (male) sex, but I think that my fears are not entirely unwarranted. While educating young females, young males and male teenagers should similarly be cautioned about the dangers of sex offenders, no matter how ridiculous it might seem.
(497 words)
Sidenote:
The basketball coach known as "Josh" was sacked after being spotted in the news. Although his face was covered, he was recognised by some teachers in a few schools...
-Source: The Sunday Times, 13/05/2007, Headline: School fires coach who tried to hook up with ‘13-year-old’
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Driving the message home
The Original Article
Source: The Straits Times
Day: Wednesday
Pub Date: 16/05/2007
Page: 26
Headline: LAWS ON DRINK DRIVING-
Make it legal duty to stop drivers
By: ANDY HO
Page Heading: REVIEW
DRINK driving has been in the news too much recently. The number arrested for the offence jumped from 2,929 in 2004 to 3,733 last year, say the Traffic Police.
Whatever the reason for this spike, there is a case to be made that your drinking buddies – and bartenders, bouncers, valets or those who ride in your car – are morally bound to stop you from taking to the wheel after you have had a few stiff ones. But since they do not seem to be doing that frequently enough, why not impose a legal duty on them to do so?
Bartenders could be empowered to hold on to a patron’s car keys before he starts drinking and refuse to hand them over at the end of the night. This might require such establishments to have breathalysers, for instance. The law could require valets, bouncers and friends to even pull car keys from the ignition if an intoxicated fellow were to try driving off.
Some lawyers, however, caution against passing a law that requires a person to do something to help another, even if it potentially prevents people other than the helped one from getting maimed or killed. In contrast to laws that forbid murder or rape, for example, such a law would punish not an act of commission but one of omission, something not traditionally accepted in common-law countries like Singapore.
Yes, taking a life is different from failing to rescue one, but do the two differ so much that, while capital punishment is justifiable in the former, no legal condemnation is acceptable in the latter case?
Detractors say criminal law punishes individuals for what they do, not for being selfish, callous, uncaring or for thinking bad thoughts. Whether or not to do a good deed is something you decide as your conscience dictates. In a pluralistic society like ours, there is no consensus on the moral values on which a duty to rescue might be based, so the Government should take no stand on the issue. Moreover, the Government should not be in the business of monitoring the religious and moral system, opponents argue.
But it seems to me that no Singaporean would vigorously disagree that your drinking buddies, say, have a moral duty to stop you from driving if you are quite intoxicated. The only disagreement is whether to enforce this legally.
Most of us, in fact, have no problem with the legal enforcement of shared moral values. For instance, we can all agree that parents are morally obliged to protect and provide for their children, so legally requiring them to do so is uncontroversial. Also, criminal law assumes that I do not rape, murder, or rob because I (should) know that it is (morally) wrong to do so.
This is true even where the law requires me to do something instead of merely refraining from an act. For example, the law requires me to stay put at the scene of an accident in which I have been involved, call for aid and assist law enforcers in their investigations. Just to be sure I do, there are penalties in place – including jail time – to ensure there is something else to deter me from evading my responsibilities if my moral restraints are weak.
We also ask of a person accused of a civil or criminal wrong not just if he had committed the act but also whether he was blameworthy. That is, the ethical quality of his actions determines whether he is to be blamed.
But if the law focuses on not just if an act was carried out but also if the actor is ethically worthy of blame – that is, if moral culpability is the real basis of legal responsibility – we should also be moving away from distinguishing between whether harm resulted from a person’s act or his willful non-act, to asking, instead, whether failing to act is equally blameworthy.
Sure, it takes a lot to stop your friend from driving off but doing nothing takes some effort as well.
Opponents of such a law also say it would infringe upon the individual’s right to liberty. But when the liberty to choose is agonisingly sullied by bad conscience, it must be a liberty worth little.
At any rate, there are times when the moral duty to act supersedes our freedoms. Thus, we pay taxes so that, among other things, the poor can be helped and we do not flinch from prosecuting those who evade taxes.
By analogy, requiring friends and bartenders to prevent the intoxicated from driving off is yet another situation where the duty to help others – including potential victims of the drunk driver – is arguably more important than our own liberties.
Finally, some opponents even suggest that any action that is not freely chosen is not truly virtuous, so a law that imposes the affirmative duty to act does not bring out the best in us. Surely no one who could be saved by such a law should have to lose life or limb while the rest of us good folks ascertain if our altruism is truly beyond reproach.
The problem with these objections is that they are raised in the abstract, so that failing to help means simply a lack; that is, a lack of response to someone else’s problem.
But in real life, there is no telling who your inebriated friend might run into down the road.
The concreteness of such situations – of which all are morally significant – justifies a law to compel people to stop the inebriated from driving.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Some background information:
“On May 9, the court saw ex-show host Benedict Goh, 37, being charged with two counts of drink driving. The next day, actor Christopher Lee, 35, was sentenced to four weeks in jail and fined $4,500 for drink-driving and hit-and-run offences.”
“At roadblocks in Outram and Tampines roads between 11.30pm on Friday and 4.45am the next day, one in four of the 39 motorists tested were arrested for drink driving.”
“Till March this year, 914 motorists – 141 of whom were involved in accidents – were held for drink-driving. In the same period last year, 753 people were held, including 134 involved in accidents.
“Last year, 25 people died in crashes involving drunk drivers, up from 20 in 2005, and 336 were injured – a 50 per cent jump from the previous year.”
—all adapted from “1 in 4 fail police drink- driving test”: Straits Times on Monday, 14/05/2007
My Response:
In light of the recent spate of drink driving cases, this writer makes an interesting proposition of institutionalising a mandatory law for bar establishments to stop inebriated people from driving. He manages to present both sides of the coin succinctly, synthesising points into a full argument in a convincing manner.
Drink driving concerns not only a driver’s life, but also the safety of potentially imperiled pedestrians, car drivers, or property that may cross his path. The enormity of the situation cannot be ignored, and preemptive measures must be taken to prevent the unnecessary ramifications caused by this offence.
A law with moral grounding is by no means a strong one. When an intoxicated person is unaware of the exact implications of his actions, the bystander is morally bound to guide him into act desirably and harmlessly. A legal duty will serve to strengthen what is already a moral action by imposing a punishment onto those who disobey it.
Detractors would of course lambast the law as an impeachment of (democratic) choice and freedom. This view is entirely valid, as the action of preventing others from committing offences is ultimately voluntary, implying that inaction is an offence, a debatable point because inaction almost never considered criminal in today’s judiciary. The severity and scope of the law is also questioned, as the majority of drink drivers are not involved in accidents.
Although opposing stances are dealt with, I feel that the writer has failed to delve into the more practical aspects of the law, which is as important as its moral components. Regarding this, I do have reservations on how the laws can be enforced. When a drunk drives away undetected and gets involved in an accident, the only person we would accuse as culpable is beyond doubt the drunk. This loophole allows bar employees to escape punishment, even though they have failed to stop the driver. But even if bar employees are held responsible, they can merely deny all charges and succeed; by sheer prosaicness of the “crime”, potential witnesses would not, for example, notice anything wrong in a boxer’s lack of interest in a drunk, hence the lack of eye-witnesses. Without eye-witnesses, a judge would rather believe an accused bar employee who is perfectly capable of discernment than an accuser who is “not in the right frame of mind” at the time of the “crime”. Come-what-may, the offender would always get away scot-free with the crime.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, and being a pragmatist, believing practicality to be priority. Being a conservative Singaporean, I believe that freedom is a façade, that strict laws must be implemented to ensure the betterment of society. But much as I applaud the writer’s insights into this very pressing issue, I must accede that the law, this time round, cannot solve this issue. Rather, I suggest the government astutely educate the public not only by “scare tactics” of an accident’s “crippling” effects, but also the moral consequences behind the irresponsible offence of drink driving.
(500 words)
Source: The Straits Times
Day: Wednesday
Pub Date: 16/05/2007
Page: 26
Headline: LAWS ON DRINK DRIVING-
Make it legal duty to stop drivers
By: ANDY HO
Page Heading: REVIEW
DRINK driving has been in the news too much recently. The number arrested for the offence jumped from 2,929 in 2004 to 3,733 last year, say the Traffic Police.
Whatever the reason for this spike, there is a case to be made that your drinking buddies – and bartenders, bouncers, valets or those who ride in your car – are morally bound to stop you from taking to the wheel after you have had a few stiff ones. But since they do not seem to be doing that frequently enough, why not impose a legal duty on them to do so?
Bartenders could be empowered to hold on to a patron’s car keys before he starts drinking and refuse to hand them over at the end of the night. This might require such establishments to have breathalysers, for instance. The law could require valets, bouncers and friends to even pull car keys from the ignition if an intoxicated fellow were to try driving off.
Some lawyers, however, caution against passing a law that requires a person to do something to help another, even if it potentially prevents people other than the helped one from getting maimed or killed. In contrast to laws that forbid murder or rape, for example, such a law would punish not an act of commission but one of omission, something not traditionally accepted in common-law countries like Singapore.
Yes, taking a life is different from failing to rescue one, but do the two differ so much that, while capital punishment is justifiable in the former, no legal condemnation is acceptable in the latter case?
Detractors say criminal law punishes individuals for what they do, not for being selfish, callous, uncaring or for thinking bad thoughts. Whether or not to do a good deed is something you decide as your conscience dictates. In a pluralistic society like ours, there is no consensus on the moral values on which a duty to rescue might be based, so the Government should take no stand on the issue. Moreover, the Government should not be in the business of monitoring the religious and moral system, opponents argue.
But it seems to me that no Singaporean would vigorously disagree that your drinking buddies, say, have a moral duty to stop you from driving if you are quite intoxicated. The only disagreement is whether to enforce this legally.
Most of us, in fact, have no problem with the legal enforcement of shared moral values. For instance, we can all agree that parents are morally obliged to protect and provide for their children, so legally requiring them to do so is uncontroversial. Also, criminal law assumes that I do not rape, murder, or rob because I (should) know that it is (morally) wrong to do so.
This is true even where the law requires me to do something instead of merely refraining from an act. For example, the law requires me to stay put at the scene of an accident in which I have been involved, call for aid and assist law enforcers in their investigations. Just to be sure I do, there are penalties in place – including jail time – to ensure there is something else to deter me from evading my responsibilities if my moral restraints are weak.
We also ask of a person accused of a civil or criminal wrong not just if he had committed the act but also whether he was blameworthy. That is, the ethical quality of his actions determines whether he is to be blamed.
But if the law focuses on not just if an act was carried out but also if the actor is ethically worthy of blame – that is, if moral culpability is the real basis of legal responsibility – we should also be moving away from distinguishing between whether harm resulted from a person’s act or his willful non-act, to asking, instead, whether failing to act is equally blameworthy.
Sure, it takes a lot to stop your friend from driving off but doing nothing takes some effort as well.
Opponents of such a law also say it would infringe upon the individual’s right to liberty. But when the liberty to choose is agonisingly sullied by bad conscience, it must be a liberty worth little.
At any rate, there are times when the moral duty to act supersedes our freedoms. Thus, we pay taxes so that, among other things, the poor can be helped and we do not flinch from prosecuting those who evade taxes.
By analogy, requiring friends and bartenders to prevent the intoxicated from driving off is yet another situation where the duty to help others – including potential victims of the drunk driver – is arguably more important than our own liberties.
Finally, some opponents even suggest that any action that is not freely chosen is not truly virtuous, so a law that imposes the affirmative duty to act does not bring out the best in us. Surely no one who could be saved by such a law should have to lose life or limb while the rest of us good folks ascertain if our altruism is truly beyond reproach.
The problem with these objections is that they are raised in the abstract, so that failing to help means simply a lack; that is, a lack of response to someone else’s problem.
But in real life, there is no telling who your inebriated friend might run into down the road.
The concreteness of such situations – of which all are morally significant – justifies a law to compel people to stop the inebriated from driving.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Some background information:
“On May 9, the court saw ex-show host Benedict Goh, 37, being charged with two counts of drink driving. The next day, actor Christopher Lee, 35, was sentenced to four weeks in jail and fined $4,500 for drink-driving and hit-and-run offences.”
“At roadblocks in Outram and Tampines roads between 11.30pm on Friday and 4.45am the next day, one in four of the 39 motorists tested were arrested for drink driving.”
“Till March this year, 914 motorists – 141 of whom were involved in accidents – were held for drink-driving. In the same period last year, 753 people were held, including 134 involved in accidents.
“Last year, 25 people died in crashes involving drunk drivers, up from 20 in 2005, and 336 were injured – a 50 per cent jump from the previous year.”
—all adapted from “1 in 4 fail police drink- driving test”: Straits Times on Monday, 14/05/2007
My Response:
In light of the recent spate of drink driving cases, this writer makes an interesting proposition of institutionalising a mandatory law for bar establishments to stop inebriated people from driving. He manages to present both sides of the coin succinctly, synthesising points into a full argument in a convincing manner.
Drink driving concerns not only a driver’s life, but also the safety of potentially imperiled pedestrians, car drivers, or property that may cross his path. The enormity of the situation cannot be ignored, and preemptive measures must be taken to prevent the unnecessary ramifications caused by this offence.
A law with moral grounding is by no means a strong one. When an intoxicated person is unaware of the exact implications of his actions, the bystander is morally bound to guide him into act desirably and harmlessly. A legal duty will serve to strengthen what is already a moral action by imposing a punishment onto those who disobey it.
Detractors would of course lambast the law as an impeachment of (democratic) choice and freedom. This view is entirely valid, as the action of preventing others from committing offences is ultimately voluntary, implying that inaction is an offence, a debatable point because inaction almost never considered criminal in today’s judiciary. The severity and scope of the law is also questioned, as the majority of drink drivers are not involved in accidents.
Although opposing stances are dealt with, I feel that the writer has failed to delve into the more practical aspects of the law, which is as important as its moral components. Regarding this, I do have reservations on how the laws can be enforced. When a drunk drives away undetected and gets involved in an accident, the only person we would accuse as culpable is beyond doubt the drunk. This loophole allows bar employees to escape punishment, even though they have failed to stop the driver. But even if bar employees are held responsible, they can merely deny all charges and succeed; by sheer prosaicness of the “crime”, potential witnesses would not, for example, notice anything wrong in a boxer’s lack of interest in a drunk, hence the lack of eye-witnesses. Without eye-witnesses, a judge would rather believe an accused bar employee who is perfectly capable of discernment than an accuser who is “not in the right frame of mind” at the time of the “crime”. Come-what-may, the offender would always get away scot-free with the crime.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, and being a pragmatist, believing practicality to be priority. Being a conservative Singaporean, I believe that freedom is a façade, that strict laws must be implemented to ensure the betterment of society. But much as I applaud the writer’s insights into this very pressing issue, I must accede that the law, this time round, cannot solve this issue. Rather, I suggest the government astutely educate the public not only by “scare tactics” of an accident’s “crippling” effects, but also the moral consequences behind the irresponsible offence of drink driving.
(500 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)